SARANPAL KAUR ANAND versus PRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 28-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 100
100
SARANPAL KAUR ANAND
v.
PRADUMAN SINGH CHANDHOK AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 2022)
MARCH 28, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. VII r. 11(d), Or. XII r. 6 –
Rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation – Admission of fact
in the plaint – On facts, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against
respondent nos 1 to 9-defendant Nos. 1 to 9 seeking a decree of
declaration that the suit property is a joint undivided family property
of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 9 being the successors of
the parents of the plaintiff; decree of declaration that the purported
sale deed dated 23.08.1969 executed by late mother of the plaintiff
through her alleged attorney in favour of her brother-defendant
no. 1 and the purported sale deed dated 12.10.1995 executed by
the brother in favour of his son-defendant no. 2 is null and void;
and a decree for permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1
and 2, restraining them from raising/constructing/adding/ altering
or entering into any agreement to sell or creating any third party
interest in respect of any portion of the suit property –Defendant
No. 1 and 2 filed written statements as also an application for
rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation – Plaintiff filed
two applications u/Or. VI r. 17 seeking amendment of the plaint for
incorporating relief of possession and amending the cause of action
clause – Thereafter, the Single Judge of the High Court decided the
preliminary issue holding that the suit being barred by time, the
plaint was liable to be rejected; and the amendment applications
were dismissed as mala fide and not maintainable – Division Bench
upheld the said order – As regards the issue-whether the Single
Bench could have framed the preliminary issue u/Or. XIV r. 2 with
regard to the issue of limitation for rejecting the plaint u/Or. VII r.
11(d);whether the Division Bench could have taken recourse to Or.
XII r. 6, which was not the issue before the Single Bench, for rejecting
the plaint; and whether Single Bench and Division Bench erred in
referring to the written statements and the other documents which
were not part of the plaint while rejecting the plaint on the ground
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
that the suit was barred by limitation, in view of difference of opinion
between two Hon’ble Judges, the matter to be placed before Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of India for directions.
Directing to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for appropriate orders/directions, the Court
HELD:
Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. :
1.1 A decision under clause (d) of Rule 11 to Order VII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 normally proceeds on
‘demurrer’. This means that the party objecting to the legal action
assumes the truth of the matter alleged by the opposite party
and sets up that it is insufficient in law to sustain the claim or
there is some other defect on the face of the pleadings constituting
a legal reason why the proceedings should not be allowed to
proceed further. [Para 8][112-D-E]
1.2 As per Article 58 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act,
in a suit for declaration where Articles 56 and 57 do not apply,
the plaint should be filed within a period of three years when the
right to sue first accrues. On applying Article 58 to the prayer for
declaration, that the sale deed dated 23rd August 1969 is invalid,
the suit filed after 42 years on 27th March 2012 is clearly barred
by limitation. [Para 10][114-A-B]
1.3 The general principle, which also manifests itself in
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, is that every person is presumed
to know his own legal right and title in the property, and if he
does not take care of his own right and title to the property, the
time for filing of the suit based on such a right or title to the
property is not prevented from running against him. The
provisions of Section 17(1) embody fundamental principles of
justice and equity, viz. that a party should not be penalised for
failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or the documents
have been wilfully concealed from him and also that a party who
had acted fraudulently should not be given the benefit of limitation
running in its favour by virtue of such frauds. When the plaintiff
relies on Section 17(1) (b) of the Limitation Act asserting fraud
or mistake, he has to state the date on which he has discovered
SARANPAL KAUR ANAND v. PRADUMAN SI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.